Talk:Battle of Kherson/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: WeatherWriter (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this article. I notice you are (as of the end of March) on a Wikibreak—please let me know when you are ready to start working with me on the review. AM

@Amitchell125: Hey Amitchell125! I am available to assist with any questions from the review anytime. My userpage says partial Wikibreak only because I am going to be active for roughly an hour a day. That said, I am available to respond to questions that arise from the GA review. Cheers and thank you for being willing to review the article! (Courtesy pinging @SaintPaulOfTarsus as they also contributed a ton to the article after the GAN was started.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter: Thank you. Your ping here reminded me of the discussion we had above in February, where I said I would let you know once I was done adding content to the article. Unfortunately offline life took priority and I never ended up making some of my intended edits, and probably will not do so for a while – I foresee another wikibreak in my near future. But I wanted to return the courtesy and make you aware that there is some information I plan on adding sometime in the future (nothing groundbreaking, just supplementary), as long as it can be done in a manner that doesn't jeopardize this nomination process. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter and SaintPaulOfTarsus: It would be helpful to allow me to complete my review comments once the article is stable. Is more time needed to update the article before I start? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

Leads section / infobox

The lead needs to be expanded to double its current size, in order to be a better summary of the article (see MOS:LEAD).
Kherson, Kherson Oblast, Ukraine in the infobox need only read ‘Kherson, Ukraine’.
Link 192 and 194 in the infobox 124th Territorial Defense Brigade (Ukraine).
Link personnel carrier; rocket launcher.
I would consider enlarging the map to fit the infobox.
The battle of Kherson – battle needs a capital (in both cases).
by Russian forces - imo should be within the middle of the sentence, not at the end.
Kherson was the first major city - ‘Kherson is the first major city’ sounds better imo, as the war is still ongoing.

1.1 Russian invasion

I have gone ahead and added a map to help understand the events of the battle. Please feel free to delete it if you wish. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link Dmytro IshchenkoІщенко (Дмитро Миколайович (uk)), using Template:Interlanguage link.
Link column (Column (formation)).
Dup link - Nova Kakhovka.
a large Russian force – large is a redundant word here, and so can be removed.
by Ukrainian military expert Serhii Hrabskyi – is unnecessary, and i would remove it.
the town of Chaplynka – Chaplynka is much smaller than a town.
for the city's defense - should be ‘for the defense of Kherson’ (as it has not yet been introduced).
The Kherson International Airport - simply ‘Kherson International Airport’?
Thereafter – ‘Afterwards’ sounds slightly less formal.
nearby makes no sense in this context.
Antonivka links to a set index page, to the actual village, so the link needs to be replaced.
of the Territorial Defense Forces.[13][5] – not GA, but it is normal practice to have references in numerical order (this happens here and in other places in the article).

1.2 Battle for the Antonivka Road Bridge

Dup link - Antonivka.
8 kilometers – all distances need to be in both km and miles (if not already done), use Template:Convert.
the city of Mykolaiv - this needs to be moved to where Mykolaiv is first introduced in the section.

1.3 Ukrainian counterattack

Dup link – Oleshky.
Link Tweet (Tweet (social media)); the Kyiv Independent; checkpoint (Security checkpoint).
I would call Radensk a village (or amend near the towns of Radensk and Oleshky to ‘near Radensk and Oleshky’).
in the town of Chornobaivka – perhaps ‘in Chornobaivka’, as it is a village.
There is a ^{[better source needed]} tag that needs to be sorted.

1.4 Encirclement and Russian victory

Dup links - Kherson International Airport; 124th Territorial Defense Brigade.
Link Lilac Park (Бузковий парк (uk)).
Link Kherson Refinery (and amend Kherson Oil Refinery to 'Kherson Refinery').
Link Svobody Square (Площа Свободи (Херсон) (uk), amended to 'Freedom Square').
"finishing off" – should be replaced with something less euphemistic (see MOS:EUPH).

2 Aftermath

Dup link - CNN.
Link Ukrainian government (Government of Ukraine).
Consider amending who were armed to ‘who they found armed’ to improve the prose slightly.

4.1 Treachery and collaboration

Unlink United States (MOS:OL).
Consider linking Journal of Advanced Military Studies (School of Advanced Military Studies).
Chatham House think tank – MOS:SOB, consider amending to something like ...’Chatham House, the British-based think tank’.
Introduce and link Zelenskyy (using his full name).
Link aide (Aide-de-camp); airstrike.
I would simplify ...Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces.… to ‘Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces’.
SBU should be unabbreviated.

4.2 Significance

Some of the information in this section sounds obscure. El País – why is it notable that this newspaper described the defeat in this way? Is there a more general consensus that this is the case? Why is the information about the ‘measured spike in bots’ important enough to include here?
by analysts - seems unnecessary.

5 See also

2022 Chornobaivka attacks should not be included here, as the link is already in the text.
I would query including Pavel Filatyev here. He is not particularly related to the article (see MOS:ALSO).

6 References

Ref 60 (Smart) has an error message.
What makes you think Ref 20 (Twitter) is a reliable source? (see WP:USERG).
Ref 23 (Daily Sabah) has a [better source needed] tag.

Strictly speaking the following is outside the scope of a GA review (as long as the references can be accessed and are relevant), but for GA the format used should be consistent (MOS:REFERENCES). Some points to consider:

Ref 3 (Pavel Fitalyev) does not have the surname put before the first name.
Avoid using Ukrainian text (e.g. Ref 5 (Рєуцький, Костянтин)), but include it where the words are also in English (e.g. "Вони встали за Херсон. Історії оборонців вільного міста" should read something like "Вони встали за Херсон. Історії оборонців вільного міста" ("They stood up for Kherson. Stories of the defenders of the free city").
Where articles are not in English, the language has not always been given (e.g. Ref 13 (Ukrainska Pravda)).
Ref 14 (The Kyiv Independent) – link the newspaper.
The numerous quotes take up quite a lot of space and are not applied in a consistent way. Are they really needed?
(not GA) Ref 38 (Landry) has (News article), which is not needed.

7 External links

Could this source not be incorporated into the article?

I have yet to do spot checks on the references, these will follow shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

(The version of the article use is this one.)

Ref 2 - OK
Refs 6/9 - both OK but here is no need to cite this statement (it is cited in the text of the article and is non-controversial).
Ref 19 - OK but mayor Ihor Kolykhaiev announced that Kherson remained under Ukrainian control – it was the website that reported it.
Ref 36 - The text is not cited by this reference.
Ref 41 - OK
Ref 50 - The text is not cited by this reference.
Ref 58 - OK
Ref 59 - described by analysts as "a gateway to Crimea" – this phrase was said by only one person.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 11 April to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failing

Failing the nomination due to a lack of activity, but hopefully this will soon be re-nominated. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.